Other than Madison (whose writings most people can't decipher) and Jefferson, I really liked the writings of Henry Laurens (SC) who hammered home again and again the necessity of God for the nation to survive. He like the others (even perhaps more so) understood that democracy is not something you can make or give to someone... it has to be earned. Democracy is more a verb than a noun- it's what you do when you have liberty (the noun).
Thanks for the great remark. I had originally thought about 2 short articles... I don't think so. Many years ago I wrote (almost) a book , about 360 pages- some of which survived on floppy- devising a new model for political analysis. Liberal and Conservative are so limited and people change as do the definitions of the words over time. I looked for some immutable characteristics that transcend transient labels and get to the root of human nature (in a political sense) and came up with 4 designations. So after the Bill of Rights post- I think I'll do one on that and introduce my new concept (newly named at least) The Asshole Quotient!
You have hijacked my attempt to write a series of stories with similar content. But you can't really call it stealing when the item you claim stolen is an upgrade in just about every idea possible by a factor of ten times (sarcasm-but maybe also true). My thoughts were a much more compacted version of many similar sentiments. You should go through those writings, I bet it is a heck of a read. Maybe you could co-write with Mark Levin on a book? Your selling point on the title alone he could not resist.
Do you still have a copy of your book draft? I would love to read it! Or even just the parts of it that remain.
You mention 4 political labels; I'll be interested to see what they are. Jefferson came up with just 2 primary ones, and I always thought they fit the bill pretty nicely.
"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties. 1. those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2dly those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them cherish and consider them as the most honest & safe, altho’ not the most wise depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them therefore liberals and serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, whigs and tories, republicans and federalists, aristocrats and democrats or by whatever name you please; they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last appellation of artistocrats and democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all." - Thomas Jefferson, August 10, 1824.
I break it down into leader/follower and positive/negative typologies. By positive/negative (the simplest characterizations I could come up with) People driven by either rational or irrational self-interest. In psychological terms, inner vs outer directed. I try to keep the characterizations simple because the explanations get kind of convoluted. I guess Jefferson's elite vs non-elite would suit the leader/follower except that elites are artificial- you can inherit elite status whereas by leaders I mean some innate leadership traits that make people want to follow... by personality, not fiat. I'll address factions (parties) when I write my piece on the Bill of Rights.
The stuff for the book I wrote over 20 years ago and it needs to be updated a bit- part of it was a critique of the Clinton presidency.